Introduction to the Nuremberg Trials

In the introduction, written by Karen Phinney and edited by Katie Jo Parris, you will find
background information of the Nuremberg Trials, those involved, and a brief description of the crimes
and convictions. The main sources used were Calvocoressis Nuremberg, the Facts, the Law and the
Consequences, War Crimes Tribunals; an In-Depth Analysis, and The Avalon Project at Yale Law
School.
During the atrocities of the Second World War, the Allied powers, namely the United Kingdom,
the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Union of
Soviet Socialists, stated that there would be retribution of the Axiss war crimes, namely Germanys
crimes against the Jews. At the conclusion of the war, the victors had several options of how to deal
with the crimes of the German people. Aside from doing nothing, the Allied powers could hold a trial of
neutral judges, hand all judgment over to the German people, or follow an executive action, as
recommended by Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Calvocoressi 19).
However, in order to lessen the collective guilt of the German population, the Allies chose to focus on
the principle of individual responsibility through a trial. Thus the Nuremberg trials, established for the
just and prompt trials and punishment of the major war crimes (The Avalon Project, article 1) were the
major means of justice imposed on the Axis powers by the Allies.

On August 8, 1945 in London, the International Military Tribunal was signed by all of the Allies. This
Tribunal consisted of thirty articles that illustrated the Constitution of the Tribunal through the
Jurisdiction and General Principles, the Committee for the Investigation and Prosecution of Major War
Crimes, the Fair Trials for Defendants, the Powers of Tribunal and Conduct of the Trial, the Judgment
and Sentences, and the Expenses (The Avalon Project, article 1-30). The Tribunal also dictated the role
the Allied governments would have in the judgment process. From each power there was to be four
representatives along with one alternate of the same government. The alternate would attend all of the
same meetings and hearings as the representatives and in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances
would replace a representative of his government (Calvocoressi 17). Thus the trials were to be held with
equal representation from the Allies; the victors of World War Two would decide the fate of the German
perpetrators.
Aside from the active roles of the Tribunal, any government of the United Nations could adhere
to the agreement and support the Allies. Nineteen individual governments chose to adopt the Allied
standing, and help decide the Nuremberg trials; these governments included Norway, Denmark,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Australia, New
Zealand, India, Ethiopia, Panama, Honduras, Haiti, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Calvocoressi
16). Support for the Nuremberg trials was widespread; Justice was finally being imposed on those who
chose to disregard it during the war.

In order to prosecute, the Tribunal divided the crimes into three sections: Crimes against the
Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity (The Avalon Project, article 6). A fourth crime
was recognized as Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Alleges in Other Accounts. Twenty four individuals
who participated in the crimes of World War Two, who were thought to hold the most responsibility,
were placed on trial and awaited judgment. Those people who were of high governmental standings and
had great influence over the war crimes included Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick,
Funk, Schacht, Sauckee, von Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, von Neurath, and Friche. Those prosecuted
who had been in prominent state positions included Ley, Streicher, von Schriach, and Broman. Keitel,
Donitz, Raeder, and Jodl represented the fighting services that were put on trial; Kaltenbrunner was tried
as a member of the SS and the police; and Gustav Krupp was prosecuted for providing industry for the
Nazi regime (Calvocoressi 61). By placing the guilt on individuals, the Tribunal was able to punish
many of the crimes of World War Two.
Of the twenty-four men named, only twenty two were tried, all of whom pleaded not guilty
(Controversies on File, par. 4). In regards to their crimes, none denied that the crimes had taken place.
They instead stated that they were not responsible for such crimes. However as stated by the lead
prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so
devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being
repeated. (Controversies on File, par. 2)
Thus, after eleven months of trial, from November 20, 1945 to August 31, 1946 (Calvocoressi 10),
eleven of the accused were sentenced to death, three were acquitted and the rest received prison terms
(Controversies on File, par. 4). In November of 1946 ten men were hung; Herman Goering, like Hitler,
committed suicide before he could receive his fatal punishment (Controversies on File, par. 4). Through
the arrival of a decision by the Tribunal of judicial action those individuals directly held responsible for
the Jewish genocide were punished for their wrongdoings. The punishment of these high ranking
officials indirectly assigned guilt to the Axis powers successfully.
 The Nuremberg Trials:
What were the Crimes?
In the crimes section, written by Katie Jo Parris and edited by Karen Phinney, you will find a
definition for the three different types of crimes that were written into the Tribunals constitution as
punishable under law. These three crimes were the basis for the indictments. The main resource used
was Calvocoressis Nuremberg, the Facts, the Law and the Consequences which provided the definitions
and descriptions of what each crime entails. I also used Mielke, F. and A. Mitscherlich book The Death
Doctors in order to clear up the misconception about medical experiments and their association with the
Trials.
The Military Tribunal, in its attempt to punish the axis powers without reprimanding all of the
people from those countries, was forced to develop a coherent set of laws that would bring punishment
for those responsible for the atrocities that had occurred during the Holocaust. This daunting task was
finally made tangible by the creation of three categories of punishable crimes. At the Nuremberg Trials,
and as dictated in the Tribunals Constitution, the following were those things in which one could be
convicted:
War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include but not
be limited to, murder, ill-treatment of deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian
population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas,
killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages,
or devastation not justified by military necessity (Calvocoressi 45).
In respect to war crimes, the Tribunal found the facts as follows: The Truth remains that War Crimes
were committed on a vast scale, never before seen in the history of war. They were perpetrated in all the
countries occupied by Germany and on the High Seas and were attended by every conceivable
circumstance of cruelty and horror (Calvocoressi 48).
The war crimes could be divided into two categories: crimes against fighting men and crimes against
civilians. In the first category there were included: the order to slaughter commandos to the last man
even if they surrendered; the order to separate political commissars from other Russian prisoners and
shoot them; ill-treatment and murder of Russian prisoners; the use of prisoners for medical experiments;
the use of prisoners for labour contrary to international conventions. Against the civilian population the
following crimes were proved: extermination of certain sections by organized mass murder; large scale
deportation; for labour in Germany in the most shocking conditions; the taking and shooting of hostages;
the economic exploitation of occupied territories over and above the needs of the occupying troops;
wanton devastation of towns and villages; the plunder of works of art. The list is not exhaustive
(Calvocoressi 48)
More often than not a crime which is a War Crime is also a Crime against Humanity and vice-versa:
Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on
political, racial or religious grounds in the execution of or in connection with any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where
perpetrated (Calvocoressi 57).
The prosecution contended that Crimes against Humanity fell within the province of International Law
if they were committed in preparation for or in connection with international war such as aggressive war
and War Crimes. This restriction was so as to not infringe in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state
merely on the grounds that it was offending against humanitarian principles (Calvocoressi 57-58).
The plan to exterminate the Jewish race falls under the category of Crimes against Humanity. Also,
experiments conducted by the Nazis fall under both categories. The experimenters were given
indictments by the Military Tribunal five days after the main trials were completed in Nuremberg, but
were not those twenty two members who were convicted in the actual Nuremberg Trials. The
experiments include the following: (Mitscherlich, contents page).
Low Pressure and super cooling
Tests of the possibility of drinking sea-water
Typhus Vaccine Experiments
Epidemic Hepatitis Virus Research
Sulphonamide Tests
Experiments on Bone Transplantation
Phlegmon Experiments
Mustard Gas and Phosgene Experiments
Collection of the Skeletons of Jews
Euthanasia Program, Direct Elimination and Mass Sterilization
The last category of crimes is:
Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing (Calvocoressi 30)
Crimes against Peace was a piece of legislature that was to pin point those people who were
responsible for the intentional planning of inhumane actions. It describes actions considered to be those
of aggressive war.
The judge considered these three categories and made clear his decisions by citing the following:
The Judgments were based on four counts of indictment:
1. Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts;
2. Crimes against Peace;
3. War Crimes;
4. Crimes against Humanity.

Nuremberg Trials: Judgment

This segment was written by Allison Harrer and edited by Karen Phinney. It is an overview of
the actual Nuremberg trials, including a brief summary of each of the twenty-one Nazi officials tried.
Sources used include
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremburg/nuremburg.htm, www.facts.com/icof/nazi.htm,
and G.M. Gilberts Nuremburg Diary.
Shortly after WWII ended in May 1945, Allied governments jointly agreed that those responsible
for wartime atrocities must be held accountable and punished for their crimes. The International Military
Tribunal (IMT) was organized in the German city of Nuremberg in order to do just that. The United
States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union each appointed judges and supplied prosecutors to
the Tribunal for the trials of high-level Nazi officials seized after the war. Prior to the Nuremberg trials,
war crimes were limited to the military courts of the individual countries; for the first time, the
concepts of collective guilt were used to justify punishment, (Facts On File News Services,
1997). Some 5,000 Nazis were charged with war crimes. However, the Nuremberg trials were
designed specifically to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials with whom authority over heinous
atrocities rested. The four counts of the indictment were: 1- Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in
other counts; 2- Crimes against peace; 3- War crimes; 4- Crimes against humanity. The Nuremburg trials
were one of the first organized attempts to apply principles of international law, and established new
precedents for the international community.
Goering, Hermann: For detailed case sample see Goering page
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Hess, Rudolf: Hess was the deputy to the Fuhrer and Nazi Party leader.
These positions endowed him with responsibilities such as handling all Party
matters and gave him the authority to make decisions in Hitlers name on all
questions of Party leadership. Hess signed decrees persecuting Jews and was
an informed and willing participant in German aggression against Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 1 & 2.
Sentence: Life Imprisonment.
Ribbentrop, Joachim Von: Ribbentrop was the German
Ambassador to England who played a significant diplomatic role in
regards to aggressive plans against Czechoslovakia, Austria, the
Soviet Union, and Poland. Ribbentrop also played an important part in
Hitlers final solution of the Jewish question, because Hitlers policies and
plans coincided very closely with his own (Gilbert 438-439). He played an
active role in the final solution when he worked to accelerate the
deportation of Jews to concentration camps in the East.
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Keitel, Wilhelm: Keitel was the Chief of Staff of the German High Command.
He signed orders and planned the attacks on Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Belgium, Holland, and Russia, but testified that he was opposed to the
invasion of the Soviet Union. He ordered the killing of captured commandos
and reprisals against the families of Allied volunteers. Attacks against soldiers
in the East were ordered to be 50100 Communists for every one German
soldier, remarking human life [is] less than nothing in the East, (Gilbert
439-440). Keitel drafted the Night and Fog decree that authorized the
nighttime arrest and secret killing of suspected members of the
resistance.
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
 Kaltenbrunner, Ernst: Kaltenbrunner was chief of the Security Police, SD,
and head of the RSHA, which meant he was also in charge of the Gestapo, the
SD and the Criminal Police. RSHA, at the time, engaged in widespread crimes
against humanity as well as war crimes, including mistreatment and murder
of POWs, and concentration camp workers, namely Jews, commissars, and
others. Under RSHA, about 6 million Jews were murdered, which established
Kaltenbrunner in a leading role in the final solution of the Jewish question.
This included the order to have prisoners of Dachau and other camps
liquidated just before camps would have been liberated by the Allies.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 3 & 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Rosenberg, Alfred: Rosenberg developed and spread Nazi doctrines in
several newspapers, which he edited and in the books he wrote. He headed
the APA, whose agents were active in Nazi intrigue all over the world.
Rosenberg played an important part in planning the attack on Norway. In July
1941, Hitler appointed him as Reich Minister of the Easter Occupied Territories
and stated that he bears a major responsibility for the formulation and
execution of occupation policies in the Occupied Eastern Territories. He
helped create policies for Germanization, exploitation, forced labor,
extermination of the Jews, and knew of the horrendous and brutal treatment
of Eastern peoples.
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Frank, Hans: Frank was appointed Chief Civil Administration Officer as well
as Governor-General for occupied Polish territory, with the nickname Jew
butcher of Krakow. His plans for Poland were based on the complete
exploitation of its human and economic resources, policies he was aware that
caused inhumane treatment of Poles leading to starvation, slave labor, and a
program involving the murder of at least 3 million Jews.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 3 & 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Frick, Wilhelm: Frick was largely responsible for bringing the
German nation under the complete control of the NSDAP, by
drafting, signing, and administering laws that abolished all opposition parties
and prepared for the Gestapo and concentration camp utilization to crush any
individual opposition (Gilbert 442). Frick was very anti-Semitic and his laws
reflected this and his desire to rid German life and economy of Jewish people.
He also had knowledge of the systematic murdering of the insane, ill, and
aged people, and did nothing to stop the process.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 2, 3, & 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Streicher, Julius: Steicher was the editor of Der Sturmer, and had a long
history of anti-Semitism. He began calling for the annihilation of the Jewish
 race, as early as 1938. He organized a boycott of Jewish businesses on April
1, 1933, and was responsible for the destruction of a Jewish synagogue in
Nuremberg on August 10, 1938 (. The tribunal stated that, Streitchers
incitement to murder and [mass] extermination at the time when Jews in the
East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes
persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes
and constitutes a crime against humanity,(Gilbert 442-443).
Verdict: Guilty on count 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Funk, Walther: Funk was the Minister of Nazi economic and financial
departments. He entered into an agreement with Himmler which stated that
the Reichsbank would receive currency, gold, and jewels from the SS without
extensive questioning. As a result, the Reichsbank was sent the personal
belongings taken from the victims sent to the concentration camps. The
Tribunals opinion was that Funk either knew what was being received or was
deliberately closing his eyes to what was being done(Gilbert 443).
Verdict: Guilty on counts 2, 3, & 4.
Sentence: Life Imprisonment. He was released in 1957 because of poor health, and died in
1959.
Schacht, Baldur Von: Schacht was the Minister of Economics and
Plenipotentiary General for Germany before WWII, but while in office readied
Germanys economy for war. He played an important role in the rearmament
program, which utilized the Reichsbank to its fullest extent. However, this is
not a criminal act under the Charter. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the evidence did not show without a reasonable doubt that Schacht carried
out this rearmament as part of the Nazi plan to wage aggressive wars. He in
fact spent 10 months of 1944 in a concentration camp because of suspicion
he was plotting against Hitler.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Doenitz, Karl: Doenitz was a German naval admiral who would eventually
command the entire navy. He was chosen by Hitler to succeed him as
fuehrer. Evidence does not show the he was part of the conspiracy to wage
aggressive wars or that he prepared and initiated such wars,(Gilbert
444). However, he issued the Laconia Order to the German submarine fleet,
which forbid rescuing enemy shipwreck survivors. Doenitz also was
responsible for Hitlers Commando order, by which the members of an Allied
motor torpedo boat wereturned over to the SD and shot
Verdict: Guilty on counts 2 & 3.
Sentence: 10 years imprisonment.
Raeder, Erich: Raeder was Commander and Chief of the German Navy for 15
years, and admittied to the violation of the Versailles Treaty. He was one of 5
leaders present at the Hoszbach Conference of November 5, 1937 from where
 the idea of invading Norway first arose. It is clear from this evidence that
Raeder participated in the planning and waging of aggressive war
Verdict: Guilty on counts 1, 2, & 3.
Sentence: Life imprisonment. He served nine years before his release in 1955, and died in 1960.
Von Schirach, Baldur: Von Schirach Used the Hitler Jugend to educate the
German Youth in the spirit of Nation Socialism and subjected them to an
extensive program of Nazi propaganda. Von Schirach did not originate the
policy of deporting Jews from Vienna, but participated once he had become
Gauleiter of Vienna in which he made a speech that defended his action in
having driven tens of thousands of Jews into the Ghetto of the East as
contributing to European culture,(Gilbert 445).
Verdict: Guilty on count 4.
Sentence: 20 years imprisonment.
Sauckel, Fritz: Sauckel was the Chief of Slave Labor Recruitment for the
Nazi regime. The evidence shows that Sauckel was in charge of a program
involving the deportation of more than 5 million people for slave labor under
terrible conditions of cruelty and suffering.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 3 & 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
Jodl, Alfred: Jodl was the Chief of Operations for the German High
Command and was active in planning the attacks against Norway,
Holland, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Russia. He was responsible for the
elimination of the Soviet commissars, but used the defense of superior
orders, prohibited by Article 8 of the Charter as a defense.
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts.
Sentence: Death by Hanging.
Von Papen, Franz: Von Papen was Reich Chancellor prior to Hitler and was
active in 1932 and 1933 in aiding Hitler from the Coalition Cabinet and
acquiring his appointment as Chancellor. Under Hitler he was Vice-Chancellor
and Ambassador to Turkey. He participated in Nazi consolidation of control in
1933, and accepted the position as Minister to Austria, with the primary
purpose of bringing about the Anschluss. Under the Charter, he could not be
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose of his activities was
for the planning of aggressive war.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Seyss-Inquart, Arthur: Seyss-Inquart was Reich Commissioner for the
Occupied Netherlands. He was involved in the shooting of hostages for
offenses against occupation authorities and sending suspected opponents to
concentration camps including priests and educators. He was a knowing and
voluntary participant in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
Verdict: Guilty on counts 2, 3, & 4.
Sentence: Death by hanging.
 Speer, Albert: As Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions and General
Plenipotentiary for Armaments under the Four Year Plan, Speer had extensive
authority over production and knew labor would be foreign laborers obtained
by force. Speer was one of the few men who during the closing stages of war,
had the courage to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to
prevent senseless destruction, (Gilbert 447).
Verdict: Guilty on counts 3 & 4.
Sentence: 20 years imprisonment.
Neurath, Konstantin Von: Neurath was the German Minister of Foreign
Affairs and took part in the Hoszbach Conference on November 5, 1937.
Although he resigned in 1938, he retained a formal relationship with the Nazi
regime as appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia in 1939. He
served as chief German official in the Protectorate when the administration
of this territory played an important role in the wars of aggression which
Germany was waging in the East, knowing that the War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity were being committed under his authority, (Gilbert 447).
Verdict: Guilty on all four counts.
Sentence: 15 years imprisonment. He was released in 1954 because of poor health and died two
years after.
Fritzsche, Hans: Fritzsche became head of the Radio Division, one of the
twelve divisions of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry, which made strong
propaganda statements that were not beyond a reasonable doubt intended to
incite the German people to commit atrocities on conquered peoples, and
cannot be said to have been a participant in the crimes charged,(Gilbert
448).
Verdict: Not Guilty.

The Nuremberg trials (German: die Nrnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals, held by the Allied
forces after World War II, which were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military,
judicial and economic leadership of Nazi Germany who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the
Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, and its decisions marked a
turning point between classical international law and contemporary international law.
The first, and best known of these trials, described as "the greatest trial in history" by Norman Birkett, one of the British
judges who presided over it,[1] was the trial of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT).
Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, [2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important
political and military leaders of the Third Reich though the proceedings of Martin Bormann was tried in absentia, while
another, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement.
Not included were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels, all of whom had committed suicide in the spring
of 1945, well before the indictment was signed.[3] Reinhard Heydrich was not included, as he had been assassinated in
1942.
The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg
Military Tribunals (NMT), which included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT;
see Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on the NMT (the second set of trials).
The typification of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be used
afterwards by the United Nations for the development of a specific international jurisprudence in matter of War
crime, Crimes against humanity, War of aggression, as well as for the creation of the International Criminal Court.

The principles[edit]
Principle I[edit]
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to
punishment."
Principle II[edit]
"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not
relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III[edit]
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of
State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV[edit]
Main article: Superior Orders

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility
under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's
orders'".
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the
prominent, high-profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the "Nuremberg
Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are
in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph
171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under
which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country
for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V[edit]
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Principle VI[edit]
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment
or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-
treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property,
wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population,
or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried
on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."
Principle VII[edit]
"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."
The Principles' power or lack of power[edit]
See also: Sources of international law and International legal theory

In the period just prior to the June 26, 1945 signing of the Charter of the United Nations,
the governments participating in its drafting were opposed to conferring on the United
Nations legislative power to enact binding rules of international law. As a corollary, they also
rejected proposals to confer on the General Assembly the power to impose certain general
conventions on states by some form of majority vote. There was, however, strong support for
conferring on the General Assembly the more limited powers of study and recommendation,
which led to the adoption of Article 13 in Chapter IV of the Charter.[1] It obliges the United
Nations General Assembly to initiate studies and to make recommendations that encourage
the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Nuremberg
Principles were developed by UN organs under that limited mandate. [2]
Unlike treaty law, customary international law is not written. To prove that a certain rule is
customary one has to show that it is reflected in state practice and that there exists a
conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law.
(For example, the Nuremberg Trials were a "practice" of the "international law" of the
Nuremberg Principles; and that "practice" was supported by the international community.) In
this context, "practice" relates to official state practice and therefore includes formal
statements by states. A contrary practice by some states is possible. If this contrary practice
is condemned by other states then the rule is confirmed.[3](See also: Sources of international
law)
In 1947, under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International
Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in
the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of
the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission
should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment
constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg
Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission
was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but
merely to formulate them. The text above was adopted by the Commission at its second
session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374378).[4]
Examples of the principles supported and not supported[edit]
For examples relating to Principle VI, see List of war crimes.

For examples relating to Principle IV (from before, during, and after the Nuremberg Trials),
see Superior Orders.

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[edit]

Concerning Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individuals responsibility, it could
be argued that a version of the Superior Orders defense can be found as a defense to
international crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (The Rome
Statute was agreed upon in 1998 as the foundational document of the International Criminal
Court, established to try those individuals accused of serious international crimes.) Article 33,
titled "Superior Orders and prescription of law,"[5] states:
1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person
pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not
relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the
superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are
manifestly unlawful.
There are two interpretations of this Article:
This formulation, especially (1)(a), whilst effectively prohibiting the use of the Nuremberg
Defense in relation to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, does however,
appear to allow the Nuremberg Defense to be used as a protection against charges of
war crimes, provided the relevant criteria are met.
Nevertheless, this interpretation of ICC Article 33 is open to debate: For example, Article
33 (1)(c) protects the defendant only if "the order was not manifestly unlawful." The
"order" could be considered "unlawful" if we consider Nuremberg Principle IV to be the
applicable "law" in this case. If so, then the defendant is not protected. Discussion as to
whether or not Nuremberg Principle IV is the applicable law in this case is found in a
discussion of the Nuremberg Principles' power or lack of power.
See also: States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Canada[edit]
Main article: Jeremy Hinzman

Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individuals responsibility, was also at issue
in Canada in the case of Hinzman v. Canada.Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S.
Army deserter who claimed refugee status in Canada as a conscientious objector, one
of many Iraq War resisters. Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, had previously raised the issue
of the legality of the Iraq War as having a bearing on their case. The Federal Court ruling was
released on March 31, 2006, and denied the refugee status claim. [6][7] In the decision,
Justice Anne L. Mactavish addressed the issue of personal responsibility:
An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against
peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal
assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held
criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her
personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper. [8][9][10]
On Nov 15, 2007, a of quorum the Supreme Court of Canada consisting of Justices Michel
Bastarache, Rosalie Abella, and Louise Charron refused an application to have the Court
hear the case on appeal, without giving reasons.[11][12]